TB9-28934

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-28934 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.aXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision March 3, 2021 Date de la décision Panel T. Card Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Michael F. Loebach Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the "Appellant"), is a citizen of Jordan. He is appealing a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denying his claim for refugee protection on the basis that he was found not credible. DETERMINATION [2] The Appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND [3] The Appellant is a citizen of Jordan. He fears his Ex-Wife's extended family. [4] The Appellant married his now Ex-Wife (the "Ex-Wife") on XXXX XXXX 2006. The Ex-Wife is also the Appellant's maternal cousin. [5] From the end of 2015, the Appellant started having problems with his Ex-Wife's mother about the marriage. The Appellant eventually divorced the Ex-Wife on XXXX XXXX 2018 while they were residing in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). [6] The Appellant went back to Jordan on XXXX XXXX 2018 and his problems with his Ex-Wife's mother continued. While there, a strange man attempted to attack the Appellant in his car, resulting in broken car windows. The Appellant then went to Canada in July 2018 and made his refugee claim. The RPD rejected the Appellant's claim on the basis he was found not credible. ADMISSIBILITY OF APPELLANT'S EVIDENCE SUBMITTED ON APPEAL [7] In support of this appeal, the Appellant proposed the admission of the following as new evidence: a. WhatsApp conversation between the Appellant and the Ex-Wife dated 5 November 2019 with translation.1 [8] S.110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)2 provides that the Appellant may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that they could not reasonably have been expected3 in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. It is for the Appellant to make full and detailed submissions in their Memorandum about how any proposed new evidence meets the requirements of s.110(4) and how that evidence relates to the Appellant.4 [9] In addition, if the new evidence meets one of the explicit legislative factors in s.110(4), then the second step of the analysis is for the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to apply the adapted Raza factors endorsed in Singh.5 In Singh, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the RAD should assess the admissibility of the new evidence for its credibility, relevance and newness. Documents rejected [10] The conversation in question does take place after the RPD decision was rendered. However, much like the assessment of published articles, it is the content, not the date of publication, which needs to be assessed on whether the evidence is truly new. [11] In this case, the conversation is simply a re-confirmation of the Appellant's claim that he fears being killed if he is returned to Jordan. There is no change in circumstances referred to, and no new information that was unknown to the Appellant at the time, discussed in the course of the conversation. [12] For these reasons, I find the proposed documents do not meet the requirements of s.110(4) of the IRPA. The proposed documents are therefore rejected. NO ORAL HEARING [13] The RAD may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in subsection 110(3) of the IRPA that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal, is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim, and, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim.6 [14] As no new evidence has been accepted, the requirements of subsection 110(6) of the IRPA have not been met, and an oral hearing cannot be held. ISSUES IN APPEAL [15] The Appellant argued the following issues in his appeal: (a) The RPD erred in its treatment of the Appellant's evidence and testimony and its assessment of the Appellant's credibility. (b) The RPD failed to take into account documentary evidence when assessing the Appellant's claim and credibility. [16] I find the determinative issue is credibility. ANALYSIS [17] I have conducted an independent analysis of the evidence concerned, including reviewing the RPD hearing, as well as considering the Appellant's Memorandum,7 the RPD Decision,8 and the Appellant's Basis of Claim (BOC) form9 as amended10 amongst other documents. Absence of threatening letters is problematic [18] The Appellant has alleged that he was sent threatening letters while in Jordan. The Appellant stated that he destroyed the letters because he did not want his father or family to see or know about them. [19] The RPD Member asked the Appellant why he did not simply hide them. The Appellant responded back with his own question asking where he would hide them, and then adding that other family members might also visit on weekends. The RPD Member did not accept this explanation. [20] The Appellant has argued that the RPD erred by ignoring this explanation. I do not agree. [21] I concur with the RPD Member that the explanation of "where would I hide the letters" is not a responsive answer to the question, and not a satisfactory one. Relatives coming to visit is also not a valid reason again to why he could not hide the letters. More importantly, the RPD Member correctly pointed out that the Appellant would surely want to keep the letters as evidence in order to present them to the police. The Appellant has not addressed this element of the RPD Member's finding. [22] I also note that it is for the Appellant to establish his case. The Appellant has alleged he was sent threatening letters, but has not produced them. His reasoning for not having them is not valid or acceptable. This means that his evidence to prove this part of his case is substantially weaker. [23] I find the RPD did not err in its assessment of this part of the Appellant's evidence, and its findings on this issue are upheld. Threats not logical [24] The Appellant has testified that he did not receive any threats from his Ex-Wife's family while in the UAE, but did receive them in Jordan. The RPD Member asked him why that was the case. [25] The Appellant's response was that the Ex-Wife's family had assets in the UAE, and that threatening him there could jeopardise their status and assets in the UAE. Conversely, the Ex-Wife's family did not fear such reprisals in Jordan. The RPD did not accept that explanation. [26] The Appellant has argued that the RPD has ignored the testimony and made a conclusion unsupported by evidence. The Appellant has also argued that the RPD has ignored the presumption of truth in his evidence. [27] I find the Appellant has completely missed the point here. The RPD correctly pointed out that the motivation of the threats was in relation to him being with his Ex-Wife. The Appellant divorced the Ex-Wife in the UAE in compliance with those wishes. The threats then only start up after leaving the Ex-Wife in another country (the UAE) and going back to Jordan. Moreover, the threat is that the Appellant should leave Jordan. The Appellant has provided no reasoning on why the Ex-Wife's family would want him to leave Jordan when the Ex-Wife is not in Jordan in the first place. [28] The Appellant cannot be held responsible for the actions of others, but in this case, those actions are so illogical when read in the context of his allegations. The Appellant's case is then further undermined with the absence of evidence such as the aforementioned threatening letters. The Appellant's account needs a ring of truth that is completely undermined by his account. Divorce credibility problems [29] The RPD Member also pointed out that the desire by the Ex-Wife's parents for the Appellant to divorce her was also not logical given evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) that divorced women are often condemned as bringing dishonour on their families, and of being "exposed to a variety of social and family pressures [CITATION OMITTED]".11 [30] The Appellant has argued that the RPD erred by relying on "one NDP item"12 and saying that that item does not apply to all women. The Appellant also states the RPD erred by ignoring his own testimony that women can divorce. [31] I find the Appellant's argument to be thoroughly unconvincing and misses the point. The RPD is correctly weighing that there is evidence in the NDP to show that at the very least, there are many women in Jordan who have experienced problems due to divorce, and that such divorce brings dishonour onto the woman's family. The Appellant's testimony on its own is far weaker than the documentary evidence and he has not submitted any evidence which rebuts what was in the NDP. [32] Furthermore, the RPD does not have to prove that these circumstances apply to all divorced women as the Appellant has stated. The prevalence of stigma is sufficient here to raise the question of why the Ex-Wife's family would even want to risk such dishonour even if this possibility was not absolute. The Appellant has not addressed this issue. [33] The RPD was correct in finding this element of the Appellant's claim to be not credible, and in not accepting the Appellant's explanation. I find the RPD did not err in its analysis of this issue and uphold its findings accordingly. Support letters carry little weight [34] The Appellant also argued that the RPD erred in ignoring five witness declarations13 when assessing his credibility. [35] I note that the RPD did not make explicit reference to these letters in its decision, but also note that it is settled law that the RPD does not need to refer to every individual piece of evidence when rendering a decision. [36] In making my independent assessment, I find that all five of the letters are extremely brief in content and none of which have accompanying identity documentation confirming the identities of the authors. There is also nothing to indicate how the letters were sent to the Appellant, creating doubt about their provenance. I also note that none of the authors were offered as witnesses at the RPD hearing. [37] For these reasons, I find the letters carry little weight, and are insufficient to overcome the credibility issues identified. CONCLUSION [38] Having reviewed the entire claim, and having conducted my independent analysis, I find the RPD did not err in finding the Appellant not credible. [39] Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RPD's decision that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed. [40] The appeal is dismissed. (signed) T. Card T. Card 3 March 2021 Date 1 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Pages 56-63. 2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 3 In the French version of the IRPA, this phrase is instead the equivalent of "normally have been expected;" see Singh, Parminder v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6711-13), Gagné, October 28, 2014, 2014 FC 1022, Paragraph 51. 4 Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257, rule 3(3)(g)(iii). 5 Raza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385, cited in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, [2016] 4 FCR 230, 2016 FCA 96, Paragraph 64. 6 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, subsection 110(6). 7 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, Pages 66-78. 8 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, RPD Decision, Pages 3-8. 9 Ibid., Exhibit 2, Pages 11-28. 10 Ibid., Exhibit 7, Pages 50-59. 11 Ibid., RPD Decision, Pages 6-7, Paragraph 11. 12 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, Memorandum, Page 73, Paragraph 49. 13 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibit 4, Pages 191-195. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB9-28934 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français